United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50344

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Johnny Thomas Hamby, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:20-CR-352-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Johnny Thomas Hamby appeals his above-guidelines sentence of 10 

years for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends that the 

sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court’s stated 

reasons, including its reliance on deterrence and protecting the public from 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 24, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50344 Document: 00516107238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2021
No. 21-50344

2

future crimes, was insufficient to support the court’s significant variance 

from the guidelines range. 

We review Hamby’s sentence for reasonableness for an abuse of 

discretion in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s sentencing factors. See Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). In so doing, we consider “the 

totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the 

[g]uidelines range,” to determine whether the § 3553(a) factors support the 

sentence, United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Although “[a] major deviation from 

the Guidelines range requires a greater justification than a minor one,” the 

district court in the instant case gave such justification. Id.; see also United 

States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The record does not show that the district court failed to account for 

a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight 

to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in 

balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 

(5th Cir. 2015). Further, the district court articulated “individualized, casespecific reasons” that justified the higher sentence. Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Namely, the district court stated that the 

sentence it gave was necessary to afford adequate deterrence to criminal 

conduct, given that Hamby committed the instant offense just 11 days after 

serving 8 years on a 16-year sentence and had not taken advantage of the 

opportunities to make positive changes in his life. Also, Hamby’s recidivism 

implicated the need to protect the public from Hamby’s further crimes, given 

that Hamby’s criminal behavior began at age 18; he had been in prison for all 

but about a year over the course of 26 years; and he had five felony 

convictions. 

Case: 21-50344 Document: 00516107238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2021
No. 21-50344

3

Hamby’s arguments amount to no more than a request for this court 

to reweigh the statutory sentencing factors, which we will not do. See United 

States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166-67 (5th Cir. 2017).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50344 Document: 00516107238 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/24/2021